Cosmological Design Argument

The argument for design has evolved over time as both theologians and philosophers have needed to adjust their arguments supporting this theory to address an ever changing landscape of scientific, biological and cosmological discovery. Despite this the essence of the argument remains intact those in support of the theory would argue that our existence on this earth and in this universe is far too complex a chain of events to have happened by chance. That in fact the existence of the universe is itself the result of a set of such improbable circumstances that there has to be intelligence behind its creation an architect, a creator or in religious terms a God (Chappell, 2011, p. 55). The versions of this argument are in my opinion interesting
however I would not call them convincing in terms of supporting the existence of a higher entity responsible for us, the world we live in or the universe we are a part of. In defence of this stand point I will give examples of the argument provided by Parley although my main focus will be on the modern arguments by Meyer and Swinborne.
Once explained I will put forward my argument against these with the support of arguments from the likes of Hume, Darwin and Dawkins.

When considering the arguments in support of the theory for design a line can be drawn between those before and those after Darwin’s theory of evolution (Chappell, 2011, p. 73). This discovery heavily impacted on those arguments from the likes of Parley and in the dialogues of Hume for example. In Parleys analogy of the watch maker he argues that an incomplete watch has no function, all its parts must be in the exact places required for the cogs and mechanisms to turn in order for it to serve its purpose this requires the intellect of the watch maker to ensure this is the case. In turn the human body and all biological things in nature would not function if there internal workings were not just so. The arrangement of our bodies our organs and of the organic structures within nature require a complex balance to operate. Parley then infers that like the watch surely there has to be intelligence behind nature’s complexity (Chappell, 2011, pp. 68-71). In Hume’s dialogues Cleanthes makes a similar correlation
between complex structures in nature and humanly created structures that are designed to serve a particular purpose again inferring that if intelligence is required for the humanly made then the same logic should apply to structures within nature (Hume, 2008, pp. 365-366). Darwin’s theory of evolution however very effectively removes much of Parleys argument. By defining existence through the imperative of survival, Darwin very convincingly argued that survival within a particular environment is what decides a dominant species. As those organisms not well equipped to stay alive die out those that survive through generations naturally continue to evolve and perfect their adaptability to the environment they have continued to thrive in. For example an animal with thick heavy fur living in cold harsh locations is likely to survive as opposed to one with little or no fur at all and as the hairless animals gradually thin in numbers and the heavy coated ones survive natural selection is seen to occur (Chappell, 2011, pp. 73-74). Taking this into account it seems that the complexity Parley refers to is in fact the result of a very slow process of incremental changes in nature to survive within any specific environment. It is not planned or by designs, there is no end result in mind nature is simply adaptive and the changes are its response to its surroundings. The animal did not choose its home because it was already perfectly designed to survive it, rather it altered its attributes to accommodate it or otherwise perish. Darwin’s theory changed the rules and the argument for design needed to evolve in response.
One such response was that of Michael Behe’s ‘irreducible complexity’ argument (Chappell, 2011, pp.
87-89) . Behe’s theory suggests that design is a part of evolution as there are complex molecular structures that exist before evolution can occur and these can’t be there by chance. An example could be that in each stage of evolution there would be times when certain organs such as the eye for example (although Behe doesn’t use this example) would be incomplete and therefore useless unless these complex biochemical structures were in place from the beginning. The claim being that evolution still needs to ‘use’ what biochemical material already exist and that this in and of itself is far too complex to have been created by chance (Chappell, 2011, pp. 87-89) However using the example of the eye again one could argue that an eye with limited functionality would be better than none at all. Furthermore although this argument attempts to embed itself into Darwin’s theory of evolution it can be explained by Darwin’s theory as with the eye example. From no eye to detecting light with a single eye from there to developing two eyes and so able to detect the light sources direction and so forth (Chappell, 2011, p. 90). Although Behe was referring to complexity on a biochemical level the analogy of the eye provides a strong argument in
opposition.

This brings me to the argument I find the most interesting in part due to it circumventing Darwin’s theory by starting at the beginning, meaning that this version of the argument for design focuses on predating evolution In fact before all living things. The fine tuning argument or Goldilocks principle (Chappell, 2011, p. 101) argues that there are numbers and equations in relation to how far the earth is from the sun or the rate at which the sun burns energy for example that need to be so precise for this planet to sustain life that it can’t be without some kind of designer. If the sun was a fraction closer to the earth life would not be possible similarly if it was further away the outcome would be the same life would not have evolved. In essence the possibility of our universe existing without these cosmological constants is impossible. Furthermore to consider that these occur by chance is so improbable that design is, to some, a viable explanation (Chappell, 2011, pp. 100-102). Even Darwin admits that his discovery is only part of the story and presupposes a world before evolution (Chappell, 2011, p. 92). In support of this perspective is the other fine tuning argument. In other words like the cosmological standpoint, prior to evolution taking place things needed to be just right for life. Despite the advances in science to help support these arguments there are new and old opposing points that still prevent me from being convinced. When considering the cosmological constants and that if they were slightly off then carbon based life forms wouldn’t exist I refer to the multiple universe theory as a response in the first instance. This theory supported by many scientists such as Sir Martin Rees (Chappell, 2011, p. 101) proposes that ours is one of an infinite number of universes and in each one the cosmological constants are different, this argument means that in the multiverse if every possible version of the universe that could exist does exist then we are not here by chance or design but simply put, our version has to exist. This removes the ‘human’ perspective from the points being raised by the fine tuning argument. If every possible version of the universe is a reality then who’s to say there are cosmological constants that would mean no life for us but could result in life sustained by something other than a carbon based ecosystem (Chappell, 2011, p. 100). Staying with the multiple universe theory even if we ignore the possibility for all versions existing at once what if we apply Darwin’s theory to the equation and our version of the universe is simply the evolutionary success, how are we to know if there were multiple failed universes before ours (Chappell, 2011, pp. 105-106). Put another way as we have only experienced this one world how are we to calculate the probability of its existence with no comparison (Hume, 2008, p. 369)

This last point with its origin in the works of Hume brings us to the crux of all arguments for design regardless of them being posed before or after Darwin’s theory of evolution. As each argument is steering us to the same conclusion, that complexity in the creation of all natural things implies an underlying intelligence, the inference being that complexity in creation by humanity requires the same. We are again comparing the clock and its inner workings to the universe (Chappell, 2011, pp. 69-71). However the leap from this to the existence of an architect, creator or God is simply too far. It will always raise the same rebuttal particularly if applying the sciences to argue the point, by using science to prove God exist we must then use the same logic with God itself. Meaning how complex must a being that created the universe be and what intelligence would be required to create such a being (Chappell, 2011, p. 101). At what point do you stop asking who created the creator, this results in the infinite domino effect, there is no answer to who or what tipped the first one to start the chain reaction.

I think Hume puts it best ‘A very small part of this great system, during a very short time, is very imperfectly discovered to us; and do we hence pronounce decisively concerning the origin of the whole?’ (Hume, 2008, p. 368) I would say based on the above arguments for and against design the answer is no, we do not.